Extreme vigilante justice

[Elspode]

Ass-kicking thoroughly justified, object insertion over the top.

The chick in the big pic on Smoking Gun is kinda cute, in a dump-apartment/trailer trash kinda way. Too bad she's into doing terrible things with sticks.

[jane_says]

I think I read she was a hooker or a stripper.

[alphageek31337]

There are two things in this world that I don't believe can be justified, ever. Those two things are pedophilia and non-consensual sodomy (I can barely justify consensual sodomy in my mind, but I can hardly consider two consenting adults enjoying each other to be wrong).

That being said, I think vigilante justice is acceptable when the standing justice system fails, but not before that. These people let their emotions get the better of them and what they did was, while understandable to the utmost, completely the wrong way to go about things. Let him go to prison and spend the next hoever many years in solitary confinement or getting the shit beat out of him every day, multiple times per day. Leave the forced sodomy up to the convicts, folks...

Edit: Also, how do you explain to your child, "Well, it was wrong, so Mommy raped the bad man with a big stick"

[glatt]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

There are two things in this world that I don't believe can be justified, ever. Those two things are pedophilia and non-consensual sodomy.

Come on, you can come up with more than two, can't you?

[Lady Sidhe]

I'd have to go with the bullets and shallow grave in the desert.


Pedophilia info

Disorder Information Sheet


We also don't know what he does when he's not peeping in the windows of 5-year-old children. Is he molesting? It makes me think of serial killers who had a history of window peeping that wasn't taken seriously by the police. They get away with it, and begin to escalate, until finally they begin to murder. I wonder if it works that way with pedophiles. Would he have tried to befriend the child later, if he hadn't been caught? Then what? Would he have tried to go further? I guess we'll never know...and from my point of view, that's a good thing.


Sidhe

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

I'd have to go with the bullets and shallow grave in the desert.


We also don't know what he does when he's not peeping in the windows of 5-year-old children. Is he molesting? It makes me think of serial killers who had a history of window peeping that wasn't taken seriously by the police. They get away with it, and begin to escalate, until finally they begin to murder. I wonder if it works that way with pedophiles. Would he have tried to befriend the child later, if he hadn't been caught? Then what? Would he have tried to go further? I guess we'll never know...and from my point of view, that's a good thing.


Sidhe

Yeah, but you still don't go raping people with big sticks (or little sticks, for that matter)--I mean, you might as well just shoot the person, you know?

[Catwoman]

Am I missing something but didn't the police report say the guy who got beaten was the ex-brother-in-law of the mother? So the attackers could quite likely have fabricated the whole story to look as if he was doing something lewd to justify their brutal actions? How do we know he was acting in a pedophilic manner? She looks like a rough little bitch with a vicious eye for revenge against the man who left her sister.

[Joe Faux]

Oh boy...

From the police report:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...royalton2.html

“When I gave her the best physical description of the male she thought maybe it was the ex-brother-in-law of the tenant in #102”

Catwoman might be onto a good conspiracy theory.

Here's what ought to happen:

Option 1: Charge the tenants of #102 with assault with a deadly weapon. File obscenity charges against the assailed man. Fully prosecute both parties using the legal system and determine if the home is still safe for the child.

Option 2: Charge the tenants of #102 with falsifying a report with an officer, obstruction of justice, and assault with a deadly weapon. Fully prosecute the people in #102 using the legal system and determine if the home is still safe for the child.

Vigilantism is wrong. While we cannot condone the alleged actions of the assailed, laws should only be enforced by officers of the law and court. Society cannot allow for folks to take it upon themselves to exact vengeance whenever they see fit.

Sadly the courts initially gave custody of the child to one of the people allegedly involved in the assault. (This means that the court determined the mother was the best option for the child's well-being.) With this crime, the courts may just hand the child over to the father, who initially missed out as a first draft choice.

This poor child is smack in the middle of this madness.

[zippyt]

2 to the head and a shallow grave , oh and dump in some red wigglers to help get things started ,

[Joe Faux]

“What ifs” really complicate things. What if someone with a vendetta against you saw you walking down the street, beat you to death, dragged your body onto their property, and then reported to the police you were flashing their child through the window? What if you were told erroneously that someone had sexually leered at your child and you killed an innocent person?

I'd prefer level-headed folks determine the actual facts.

The only fact known is that four people violently assaulted an unarmed man. The charges of sexual deviancy were leveled by the four people charged with assault.

We get a grin because we'd all like to think that someone with evil intentions had finally met justice head-on. What if it was just a domestic dispute that went very wrong and then misreported nationally?

[CzinZumerzet]

FACTS are, a person innocent until PROVED guilty recieved an horrendous illegal assault at the hands of a group of extremely aggressive people, of whom one demonstrated gross violent deviancy.